Expose Planned Parenthood, Get a Felony

[Howey]

The two people who secretly filmed execs at Planned Parenthood negotiating the sale of baby parts have been hit with felony charges by the new California Attorney General, former member of Congress and ethnic waterboy, Xavier Bacerra. Bacerra has also signed California up to usurp Trump's constitutional authority to ban refugee.

It is shown yet again that where totalitarianism lies in America, it lies with the diversity-is-our-strength left. No one believes that if two concerned citizens secretly filmed the leader of Westboro Baptist Church soliciting homosexual sex and then made it public, the two concerned citizens would be arrested and charged with a felony. There would be, justifiably, howls of outrage.

Xavier Bacerra is an outrage.

BTW, Planned Parenthood denies the video says what it says and claims it did nothing wrong. The vehemence and extremeness of the left's attack on the videographers belies their claims of innocence.

I have a feeling even the ACLU will be against this prosecution. A ban on recording someone without their consent is a 1st amendment violation with regards to a free press. How can someone do an undercover investigation and be considered credible if they are not allowed to record the evidence of said investigation?

With a warrant? And please read the bolded sentence. It is illegal in many states to record someone without their consent.

Many states had jim crow laws, and those were found unconstitutional. Appeal to authority.

Warrants are for government actors, not private citizens.

Nope!

Do the Police Have the Right to Tap My Telephone? - FindLaw

 

[Faun]

Who said investigative journalism should be banned? At the same time, that doesn't give license to break the law.

The law in questions basically prevents undercover journalism from being recorded, thus putting a serious crimp in investigative journalism.

The law itself is an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of press.

WTF?

How is the press Constitutionally free to violate individuals' Constitutional rights? And what limitations would you impose on the press? Should they be allowed to break into peoples' homes under the guise of investigations? Should they be allowed to physically assault people under the umbrella of investigation?

Argumentum ad absurdum, the first resort of the idiot.

The California law bans recording a person without their consent. This basically eliminates the ability of journalists to go undercover and record any interactions when they do a sting operation. How does a person have a right to not have their conversation recorded? It;s not like they are by themselves, there is another party involved, albeit under false pretenses, but again, that is the crux of undercover journalism.

You haven't answered the question of how an undercover journalist is supposed to function properly under a "2 person consent" recording law, and why that law is constitutional.

Great, so you would impose no limitations on the press in terms of violating others' Constitutional rights.

And a free press is still free even though they are not allowed to violate individuals' Constitutional rights. Look at that... your argument just died. And I didn't even have to get to the part of defining the "press."

When you engage in a conversation with another party about a potential business transaction, where is the privacy? The Gawker example was of a personal, sexual encounter, this is about business transactions that the PP person entered into willingly, abeit under false pretenses.

People have a right to lawfully conduct their business without the threat of being recorded without their knowledge and then having their business doings splashed in the public as though they're committing a crime.

A question, should the person who secretly recorded Romney doing the 47% thing been punished?

Romney was a public figure. There's an expectation as such he was be recorded.

 

[martybegan]

The two people who secretly filmed execs at Planned Parenthood negotiating the sale of baby parts have been hit with felony charges by the new California Attorney General, former member of Congress and ethnic waterboy, Xavier Bacerra. Bacerra has also signed California up to usurp Trump's constitutional authority to ban refugee.

It is shown yet again that where totalitarianism lies in America, it lies with the diversity-is-our-strength left. No one believes that if two concerned citizens secretly filmed the leader of Westboro Baptist Church soliciting homosexual sex and then made it public, the two concerned citizens would be arrested and charged with a felony. There would be, justifiably, howls of outrage.

Xavier Bacerra is an outrage.

BTW, Planned Parenthood denies the video says what it says and claims it did nothing wrong. The vehemence and extremeness of the left's attack on the videographers belies their claims of innocence.

I have a feeling even the ACLU will be against this prosecution. A ban on recording someone without their consent is a 1st amendment violation with regards to a free press. How can someone do an undercover investigation and be considered credible if they are not allowed to record the evidence of said investigation?

With a warrant? And please read the bolded sentence. It is illegal in many states to record someone without their consent.

Many states had jim crow laws, and those were found unconstitutional. Appeal to authority.

Warrants are for government actors, not private citizens.

Nope!

Do the Police Have the Right to Tap My Telephone? - FindLaw

Why are you linking something about police and phones when we are talking about investigative journalists?

 

[martybegan]

The law in questions basically prevents undercover journalism from being recorded, thus putting a serious crimp in investigative journalism.

The law itself is an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of press.

WTF?

How is the press Constitutionally free to violate individuals' Constitutional rights? And what limitations would you impose on the press? Should they be allowed to break into peoples' homes under the guise of investigations? Should they be allowed to physically assault people under the umbrella of investigation?

Argumentum ad absurdum, the first resort of the idiot.

The California law bans recording a person without their consent. This basically eliminates the ability of journalists to go undercover and record any interactions when they do a sting operation. How does a person have a right to not have their conversation recorded? It;s not like they are by themselves, there is another party involved, albeit under false pretenses, but again, that is the crux of undercover journalism.

You haven't answered the question of how an undercover journalist is supposed to function properly under a "2 person consent" recording law, and why that law is constitutional.

Great, so you would impose no limitations on the press in terms of violating others' Constitutional rights.

And a free press is still free even though they are not allowed to violate individuals' Constitutional rights. Look at that... your argument just died. And I didn't even have to get to the part of defining the "press."

When you engage in a conversation with another party about a potential business transaction, where is the privacy? The Gawker example was of a personal, sexual encounter, this is about business transactions that the PP person entered into willingly, abeit under false pretenses.

People have a right to lawfully conduct their business without the threat of being recorded without their knowledge and then having their business doings splashed in the public as though they're committing a crime.

A question, should the person who secretly recorded Romney doing the 47% thing been punished?

Romney was a public figure. There's an expectation as such he was be recorded.

Figures you would rationalize things to suit your viewpoints, i.e. Planned parenthood is God, and Me Hates Romney.

What a fucking poseur hack you are.

So a sex video released of a public figure would be OK? I thought one of you cretins brought up gawker as an example.

Again, how is an investigative journalist supposed to provide proof if they can't record a conversation? And what does legality have to do with it? Things can be legal but still be wrong, Jim Crow being a prime example.

 

[RealDave]

The two people who secretly filmed execs at Planned Parenthood negotiating the sale of baby parts have been hit with felony charges by the new California Attorney General, former member of Congress and ethnic waterboy, Xavier Bacerra. Bacerra has also signed California up to usurp Trump's constitutional authority to ban refugee.

It is shown yet again that where totalitarianism lies in America, it lies with the diversity-is-our-strength left. No one believes that if two concerned citizens secretly filmed the leader of Westboro Baptist Church soliciting homosexual sex and then made it public, the two concerned citizens would be arrested and charged with a felony. There would be, justifiably, howls of outrage.

Xavier Bacerra is an outrage.

BTW, Planned Parenthood denies the video says what it says and claims it did nothing wrong. The vehemence and extremeness of the left's attack on the videographers belies their claims of innocence.

I have a feeling even the ACLU will be against this prosecution. A ban on recording someone without their consent is a 1st amendment violation with regards to a free press. How can someone do an undercover investigation and be considered credible if they are not allowed to record the evidence of said investigation?

In certain States you can not record without permission. Take it up with the USSC & quit whining because your right wing buddies got caught lying & distorting.

 

[RealDave]

The entire subject of Planned Parenthood & these fake journalists is a joke. I laugh at the Republicans trying to use this to illegally attack a legal entity in order to shut down their donations to the Democrats.

I laughed when the moron Ben Carson was having a fit yet when he was in med school, he worked with tissue samples from aborted fetuses. Where did he get them!!!!! The school BOUGHT them. Companies legally sell "baby parts" so why don't you idiot right wingers go after those companies? They don't donate to Democrats like PP does.

Where do they get these parts? From medical facilities like hospitals, abortion clinics, etc. These tissue suppliers pay the costs to preserve these samples.

If you don't like that process, then you must not like the medical advancements & training that these samples provie.

So quit running through the streets screaming "OMG OMG Baby Parts" like a fucking idiot & become better informed.

 

[RealDave]

WTF?

How is the press Constitutionally free to violate individuals' Constitutional rights? And what limitations would you impose on the press? Should they be allowed to break into peoples' homes under the guise of investigations? Should they be allowed to physically assault people under the umbrella of investigation?

Argumentum ad absurdum, the first resort of the idiot.

The California law bans recording a person without their consent. This basically eliminates the ability of journalists to go undercover and record any interactions when they do a sting operation. How does a person have a right to not have their conversation recorded? It;s not like they are by themselves, there is another party involved, albeit under false pretenses, but again, that is the crux of undercover journalism.

You haven't answered the question of how an undercover journalist is supposed to function properly under a "2 person consent" recording law, and why that law is constitutional.

Great, so you would impose no limitations on the press in terms of violating others' Constitutional rights.

And a free press is still free even though they are not allowed to violate individuals' Constitutional rights. Look at that... your argument just died. And I didn't even have to get to the part of defining the "press."

When you engage in a conversation with another party about a potential business transaction, where is the privacy? The Gawker example was of a personal, sexual encounter, this is about business transactions that the PP person entered into willingly, abeit under false pretenses.

People have a right to lawfully conduct their business without the threat of being recorded without their knowledge and then having their business doings splashed in the public as though they're committing a crime.

A question, should the person who secretly recorded Romney doing the 47% thing been punished?

Romney was a public figure. There's an expectation as such he was be recorded.

Figures you would rationalize things to suit your viewpoints, i.e. Planned parenthood is God, and Me Hates Romney.

What a fucking poseur hack you are.

So a sex video released of a public figure would be OK? I thought one of you cretins brought up gawker as an example.

Again, how is an investigative journalist supposed to provide proof if they can't record a conversation? And what does legality have to do with it? Things can be legal but still be wrong, Jim Crow being a prime example.

If a sex video was taken in a private setting by pervert spying, then it is not legal. If you are performing sexual acts on the street corner, then there is no expectation of privacy.

 

[martybegan]

The two people who secretly filmed execs at Planned Parenthood negotiating the sale of baby parts have been hit with felony charges by the new California Attorney General, former member of Congress and ethnic waterboy, Xavier Bacerra. Bacerra has also signed California up to usurp Trump's constitutional authority to ban refugee.

It is shown yet again that where totalitarianism lies in America, it lies with the diversity-is-our-strength left. No one believes that if two concerned citizens secretly filmed the leader of Westboro Baptist Church soliciting homosexual sex and then made it public, the two concerned citizens would be arrested and charged with a felony. There would be, justifiably, howls of outrage.

Xavier Bacerra is an outrage.

BTW, Planned Parenthood denies the video says what it says and claims it did nothing wrong. The vehemence and extremeness of the left's attack on the videographers belies their claims of innocence.

I have a feeling even the ACLU will be against this prosecution. A ban on recording someone without their consent is a 1st amendment violation with regards to a free press. How can someone do an undercover investigation and be considered credible if they are not allowed to record the evidence of said investigation?

In certain States you can not record without permission. Take it up with the USSC & quit whining because your right wing buddies got caught lying & distorting.

I am voicing my opinion, something your jack-booted side would rather me not do.

So they dubbed someone else's words into the mouths of those PP people?

And as for your sudden disdain for spin and editing when the other side does it LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

If its good enough for Katie Couric......

 

[martybegan]

Argumentum ad absurdum, the first resort of the idiot.

The California law bans recording a person without their consent. This basically eliminates the ability of journalists to go undercover and record any interactions when they do a sting operation. How does a person have a right to not have their conversation recorded? It;s not like they are by themselves, there is another party involved, albeit under false pretenses, but again, that is the crux of undercover journalism.

You haven't answered the question of how an undercover journalist is supposed to function properly under a "2 person consent" recording law, and why that law is constitutional.

Great, so you would impose no limitations on the press in terms of violating others' Constitutional rights.

And a free press is still free even though they are not allowed to violate individuals' Constitutional rights. Look at that... your argument just died. And I didn't even have to get to the part of defining the "press."

When you engage in a conversation with another party about a potential business transaction, where is the privacy? The Gawker example was of a personal, sexual encounter, this is about business transactions that the PP person entered into willingly, abeit under false pretenses.

People have a right to lawfully conduct their business without the threat of being recorded without their knowledge and then having their business doings splashed in the public as though they're committing a crime.

A question, should the person who secretly recorded Romney doing the 47% thing been punished?

Romney was a public figure. There's an expectation as such he was be recorded.

Figures you would rationalize things to suit your viewpoints, i.e. Planned parenthood is God, and Me Hates Romney.

What a fucking poseur hack you are.

So a sex video released of a public figure would be OK? I thought one of you cretins brought up gawker as an example.

Again, how is an investigative journalist supposed to provide proof if they can't record a conversation? And what does legality have to do with it? Things can be legal but still be wrong, Jim Crow being a prime example.

If a sex video was taken in a private setting by pervert spying, then it is not legal. If you are performing sexual acts on the street corner, then there is no expectation of privacy.

These discussions were at restaurants and other public spaces...

Try again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Great, so you would impose no limitations on the press in terms of violating others' Constitutional rights.

And a free press is still free even though they are not allowed to violate individuals' Constitutional rights. Look at that... your argument just died. And I didn't even have to get to the part of defining the "press."

Oh really Fawn? Which article or amendment details the right not to be exposed for wrong doing by the press?

You fascists and your war on the 1st Amendment....

The same one that gives Congress the power to maintain an air force.

Article I?

Let's see the text?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The two people who secretly filmed execs at Planned Parenthood negotiating the sale of baby parts have been hit with felony charges by the new California Attorney General, former member of Congress and ethnic waterboy, Xavier Bacerra. Bacerra has also signed California up to usurp Trump's constitutional authority to ban refugee.

It is shown yet again that where totalitarianism lies in America, it lies with the diversity-is-our-strength left. No one believes that if two concerned citizens secretly filmed the leader of Westboro Baptist Church soliciting homosexual sex and then made it public, the two concerned citizens would be arrested and charged with a felony. There would be, justifiably, howls of outrage.

Xavier Bacerra is an outrage.

BTW, Planned Parenthood denies the video says what it says and claims it did nothing wrong. The vehemence and extremeness of the left's attack on the videographers belies their claims of innocence.

And Planned Parenthood was right. They didn't do anything w

And the far right ^^^ fascists wail because they are caught yet again.

Yes, you and the other racist fascists do indeed wail because PP got caught organ legging. Don't be so redundant, Jake.

That has been debunked

The two people who secretly filmed execs at Planned Parenthood negotiating the sale of baby parts have been hit with felony charges by the new California Attorney General, former member of Congress and ethnic waterboy, Xavier Bacerra. Bacerra has also signed California up to usurp Trump's constitutional authority to ban refugee.

It is shown yet again that where totalitarianism lies in America, it lies with the diversity-is-our-strength left. No one believes that if two concerned citizens secretly filmed the leader of Westboro Baptist Church soliciting homosexual sex and then made it public, the two concerned citizens would be arrested and charged with a felony. There would be, justifiably, howls of outrage.

Xavier Bacerra is an outrage.

BTW, Planned Parenthood denies the video says what it says and claims it did nothing wrong. The vehemence and extremeness of the left's attack on the videographers belies their claims of innocence.

Planned Parenthood didn't do anything wrong.

The video was debunked.

And now the criminals that made them will pay a price for it.

How much? Buck forty seven?

A felonious record, if convicted.

Will you fascists convict them for illegal speech? Words that are not supportive to the goals of the party?

Have you ever even heard of the 1st Amendment, fawn? I know that the Constitution on you fascists democrats is like salt on a slug, still..

 

[cnelsen]

LOL

Your IQ doesn't even have as many digits.

Fair enough Fawn, but virtually ALL conservatives have 3, rather than 2 digit IQ's. The biggest issue is that your IQ squared, STILL falls below the digits of the IQ's of most conservatives....

LOL

Just because you can type, doesn't mean yours words are worth anything. After all, there's your psychotic opinion; and then there's...

So, what you are saying then is the more educated you are the stupider you are?

Yes, that seems to be what it said. It also seems to think that stupid people never go to college or something, which of course is just silly.

Too fuckng stupid. You too sound like a Trump supporter. Sure, some very smart people never graduate high school or college... some very dumb people manage to get a college degree ... but such people are the exception, not the rule. Not too many dumb folks earning post graduate degrees.

But that's ok, I understand. You feel compelled to say something in response to evidence that the least educated folks in America are the ones who support Trump the most.

Wrong, putz, the least educated demographic in the country is reliably Dem. But, are you arguing that smart people know what's best for dumb people?

 

[cnelsen]

The entire subject of Planned Parenthood & these fake journalists is a joke. I laugh at the Republicans trying to use this to illegally attack a legal entity in order to shut down their donations to the Democrats.

I laughed when the moron Ben Carson was having a fit yet when he was in med school, he worked with tissue samples from aborted fetuses. Where did he get them!!!!! The school BOUGHT them. Companies legally sell "baby parts" so why don't you idiot right wingers go after those companies? They don't donate to Democrats like PP does.

Where do they get these parts? From medical facilities like hospitals, abortion clinics, etc. These tissue suppliers pay the costs to preserve these samples.

If you don't like that process, then you must not like the medical advancements & training that these samples provie.

So quit running through the streets screaming "OMG OMG Baby Parts" like a fucking idiot & become better informed.

So why the prosecution of the videographers if all this is so legal and wonderful? Why the howls of outrage?

 

[IcebergSlim]

And the far right ^^^ fascists wail because they are caught yet again.

Yes, you and the other racist fascists do indeed wail because PP got caught organ legging. Don't be so redundant, Jake.

That would be illegal.....so, can you link us to any indictments? Convictions?

Can you link to any Attorney General Obama appointed who would even bother to investigate a pet Democratic Party subsidiary?

Immaterial.

The perps are being charged with fraudulent behavior.

Most Americans support PP, not the beliefs of the cult to which you belong.

So you think Democrats like Obama need to be charged with fraudulent behavior. Good for you.

Tell me how that "follows"

 

[IcebergSlim]

Fair enough Fawn, but virtually ALL conservatives have 3, rather than 2 digit IQ's. The biggest issue is that your IQ squared, STILL falls below the digits of the IQ's of most conservatives....

LOL

Just because you can type, doesn't mean yours words are worth anything. After all, there's your psychotic opinion; and then there's...

So, what you are saying then is the more educated you are the stupider you are?

Yes, that seems to be what it said. It also seems to think that stupid people never go to college or something, which of course is just silly.

Too fuckng stupid. You too sound like a Trump supporter. Sure, some very smart people never graduate high school or college... some very dumb people manage to get a college degree ... but such people are the exception, not the rule. Not too many dumb folks earning post graduate degrees.

But that's ok, I understand. You feel compelled to say something in response to evidence that the least educated folks in America are the ones who support Trump the most.

Wrong, putz, the least educated demographic in the country is reliably Dem. But, are you arguing that smart people know what's best for dumb people?

Did you cast one or more votes for George Bush Jr.or Donald Trump?

It would be best for you to check with me before casting another vote...

 

[IcebergSlim]

The entire subject of Planned Parenthood & these fake journalists is a joke. I laugh at the Republicans trying to use this to illegally attack a legal entity in order to shut down their donations to the Democrats.

I laughed when the moron Ben Carson was having a fit yet when he was in med school, he worked with tissue samples from aborted fetuses. Where did he get them!!!!! The school BOUGHT them. Companies legally sell "baby parts" so why don't you idiot right wingers go after those companies? They don't donate to Democrats like PP does.

Where do they get these parts? From medical facilities like hospitals, abortion clinics, etc. These tissue suppliers pay the costs to preserve these samples.

If you don't like that process, then you must not like the medical advancements & training that these samples provie.

So quit running through the streets screaming "OMG OMG Baby Parts" like a fucking idiot & become better informed.

So why the prosecution of the videographers if all this is so legal and wonderful? Why the howls of outrage?

Because they violated the law?

 

[Faun]

WTF?

How is the press Constitutionally free to violate individuals' Constitutional rights? And what limitations would you impose on the press? Should they be allowed to break into peoples' homes under the guise of investigations? Should they be allowed to physically assault people under the umbrella of investigation?

Argumentum ad absurdum, the first resort of the idiot.

The California law bans recording a person without their consent. This basically eliminates the ability of journalists to go undercover and record any interactions when they do a sting operation. How does a person have a right to not have their conversation recorded? It;s not like they are by themselves, there is another party involved, albeit under false pretenses, but again, that is the crux of undercover journalism.

You haven't answered the question of how an undercover journalist is supposed to function properly under a "2 person consent" recording law, and why that law is constitutional.

Great, so you would impose no limitations on the press in terms of violating others' Constitutional rights.

And a free press is still free even though they are not allowed to violate individuals' Constitutional rights. Look at that... your argument just died. And I didn't even have to get to the part of defining the "press."

When you engage in a conversation with another party about a potential business transaction, where is the privacy? The Gawker example was of a personal, sexual encounter, this is about business transactions that the PP person entered into willingly, abeit under false pretenses.

People have a right to lawfully conduct their business without the threat of being recorded without their knowledge and then having their business doings splashed in the public as though they're committing a crime.

A question, should the person who secretly recorded Romney doing the 47% thing been punished?

Romney was a public figure. There's an expectation as such he was be recorded.

Figures you would rationalize things to suit your viewpoints, i.e. Planned parenthood is God, and Me Hates Romney.

What a fucking poseur hack you are.

So a sex video released of a public figure would be OK? I thought one of you cretins brought up gawker as an example.

Again, how is an investigative journalist supposed to provide proof if they can't record a conversation? And what does legality have to do with it? Things can be legal but still be wrong, Jim Crow being a prime example.

LOLOLOL

To nuts like you, being "rational" renders one a "hack."

Thanks for admitting you have no valid point to make here.

 

[martybegan]

Argumentum ad absurdum, the first resort of the idiot.

The California law bans recording a person without their consent. This basically eliminates the ability of journalists to go undercover and record any interactions when they do a sting operation. How does a person have a right to not have their conversation recorded? It;s not like they are by themselves, there is another party involved, albeit under false pretenses, but again, that is the crux of undercover journalism.

You haven't answered the question of how an undercover journalist is supposed to function properly under a "2 person consent" recording law, and why that law is constitutional.

Great, so you would impose no limitations on the press in terms of violating others' Constitutional rights.

And a free press is still free even though they are not allowed to violate individuals' Constitutional rights. Look at that... your argument just died. And I didn't even have to get to the part of defining the "press."

When you engage in a conversation with another party about a potential business transaction, where is the privacy? The Gawker example was of a personal, sexual encounter, this is about business transactions that the PP person entered into willingly, abeit under false pretenses.

People have a right to lawfully conduct their business without the threat of being recorded without their knowledge and then having their business doings splashed in the public as though they're committing a crime.

A question, should the person who secretly recorded Romney doing the 47% thing been punished?

Romney was a public figure. There's an expectation as such he was be recorded.

Figures you would rationalize things to suit your viewpoints, i.e. Planned parenthood is God, and Me Hates Romney.

What a fucking poseur hack you are.

So a sex video released of a public figure would be OK? I thought one of you cretins brought up gawker as an example.

Again, how is an investigative journalist supposed to provide proof if they can't record a conversation? And what does legality have to do with it? Things can be legal but still be wrong, Jim Crow being a prime example.

LOLOLOL

To nuts like you, being "rationale" renders one a "hack."

Thanks for admitting you have no valid point to make here.

You have failed to answer my question, how is an undercover, investigative journalist supposed to function if they can't record their target?

 

[Faun]

Great, so you would impose no limitations on the press in terms of violating others' Constitutional rights.

And a free press is still free even though they are not allowed to violate individuals' Constitutional rights. Look at that... your argument just died. And I didn't even have to get to the part of defining the "press."

Oh really Fawn? Which article or amendment details the right not to be exposed for wrong doing by the press?

You fascists and your war on the 1st Amendment....

The same one that gives Congress the power to maintain an air force.

Article I?

Let's see the text?

Moron, the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant Congress a power to maintain an Air Force. Meanwhile, they're Constitutionally empowered to do so. That was the point.

Damn, you're thick.

 

[Faun]

Great, so you would impose no limitations on the press in terms of violating others' Constitutional rights.

And a free press is still free even though they are not allowed to violate individuals' Constitutional rights. Look at that... your argument just died. And I didn't even have to get to the part of defining the "press."

When you engage in a conversation with another party about a potential business transaction, where is the privacy? The Gawker example was of a personal, sexual encounter, this is about business transactions that the PP person entered into willingly, abeit under false pretenses.

People have a right to lawfully conduct their business without the threat of being recorded without their knowledge and then having their business doings splashed in the public as though they're committing a crime.

A question, should the person who secretly recorded Romney doing the 47% thing been punished?

Romney was a public figure. There's an expectation as such he was be recorded.

Figures you would rationalize things to suit your viewpoints, i.e. Planned parenthood is God, and Me Hates Romney.

What a fucking poseur hack you are.

So a sex video released of a public figure would be OK? I thought one of you cretins brought up gawker as an example.

Again, how is an investigative journalist supposed to provide proof if they can't record a conversation? And what does legality have to do with it? Things can be legal but still be wrong, Jim Crow being a prime example.

LOLOLOL

To nuts like you, being "rationale" renders one a "hack."

Thanks for admitting you have no valid point to make here.

You have failed to answer my question, how is an undercover, investigative journalist supposed to function if they can't record their target?

Your question is a false narrative. It claims there are no other means for a journalist to do their job legally. How did journalists ever investigate anyone before recording devices were invented?